Disturbing

people were being stupid.  i called their behaviour stupid.  i stand by that.

I already tried that line trysts, but he doesn't care because, well, he doesn't care.

Come join us, joking about mass murderers is fun!

Standing by "stupid"? Are you nine years old?

If I may interject an opinion here, after having read the entire thread here, my understanding is the that the original poster is objecting to an image that he finds offensive and disturbing; that he would like to see banned from this site.  My question is who is to say what is offensive or disturbing?  What I may find disturbing, you, the reader, may think what of it---or even not notice!   How do define the line between what is allowable and forbidden?  Societal convention?  Then, who's society and culture do you use?

We are all human beings here.  We all have our own unique biases.  We mustn't forget that.

Dee

BTW, Tonydal brought up the McCarthy era, and that was brilliant.

Its misapplied. No one's talking about Senate hearings or criminal penalties, and all I'm talking about is the right of a business to project an image that's in tune with its business objectives. I've been in live chat when people make racist statements or talk about the KKK, and those people were dealt with swiftly. Is this a violation of their right to free speech or a reasonable act intended to create an enviroment that is that's inviting to all members of an online community? How much different would it be to have a James Earl Ray avatar?

If Eric wants to let this site become a haven for Neo-Nazis, lovers of despots and other hate mongers, that's his prerogative. I would hate to see it go that way because I like this site.

We can do a few things when we find that our presence of mind has been disturbed, I suppose.

We could, for instance, complain that the external world ought to change for us, that the source of our annoyance ought to be removed,

or we can turn to the moment as an opportunity to examine and confront something about ourselves, ask ourselves "Why is this coming up for me?" and find a blessing in the opportunity.

Were it the case that we too often employ the former and find ourselves still frustrated (as the internal cause must be examined, or a life wasted running around telling others to change on your behalf) and are willing to examine the latter, what might come up in this instance? Let's enjoy a speculative journey amidst OP's possible line of thinking, were he so inclined:

"Hmm, I find myself emotionally charged by a pixellated representation of a human being I feel has done great wrong. The fact that someone has volutarily chosen to employ this person's visage as their representation on this website bothers me, as I feel that it in some way supports their actions, which I find offensive.

Interestingly enough, if this is the case then the fact that I react viscerally to this image on some level indicates that deep down I'm grieved by the actions this person committed. Because my greivence resonates in this instance I can judge that my personal moral compass is calibrated to my values.

I also understand deeply that no level of sweeping these images under the proverbial rug will in any way alleviate one iota of the suffering I feel the person the .jpg represents to have caused. Would my life be better if I were to never encounter another image of Stalin or Manson ever again? Merely avoiding the sight of the man doesn't mean he ceases to exist.

Perhaps I should realize that I am the master of my own mind, and be mature enough to understand that it is no one elses responsibility to protect me from images that I might have an emotional charge around. I am glad that I have this charge, for it keeps me in touch with my humanity. Therefore this opportunity has been a blessing, as every moment truly is, and it would be beneath my austere understanding to convey my frenetic and immature energy textually, as I see that to broadcast my frustration publically will only aggravate the initial offense that I percieved!

For once I share the energy I experienced, it will multiply! Soon everyone will be drawn into this meaningless discussion, all because I couldn't achieve peace of mind with my own reflection. The discussion will spiral out, sides will be chosen and when a few people respond to the awkwardness of the situation with humor as humans do then others will accuse them of stupidity.

My, my, how I wish I'd never raised the thread in the first place, as in doing so, I not only magnified my own greivance by dwelling on it and focusing my energy on it, but now I've drawn others into it as well. If only I could see that I've done more on this website to broadcast the name Stalin than the image did in the first place. Perhaps I'll be more thoughtful in the future."

~~~~

I'm sorry, ivandh, but joking about mass murderers is not fun for me.

yuck yuck, you got me!

all i'm saying is the OP has a valid point worth considering.  considering meaning, looking at.  and i think your idea to simply ignore those who offend you or avoid them, is fine--it's probably the best we have.  so this is a sound method.  but casting stones at the guy cuz you don't see where he's coming from is really off (and yes, stupid).  we should be able to offer each othera little more than that.

"Perhaps I should realize that I am the master of my own mind, and be mature enough to understand that it is no one elses responsibility to protect me from images that I might have an emotional charge around"

That was beautifully expressed, Rae1. The whole post --Bravo!

Whose casting stones? ...Oh yeah. It was me. Well I should feel a bit apologetic for making a statement asking if he was any better, I suppose. But in all honesty I am deeply against any militant behavior (chess excluded) and don't approve the killing of people in defence of your country, religion, believes or even your avatars.

Thanks, Trysts.

To add an addendum: sometimes things can be easily either positively or negatively framed.

Positive framing: I am grateful to have been reminded that I feel strongly about certain evils in the world and that such evils exist, so as I might remain personally vigilant about them. I am grateful that I got the chance to confront my intense emotions in such an innocent way, so that I have another opportunity to understand my own value systems. I am grateful for the chance to realize that I cannot control what others believe, and that there will always be people who believe in things I may find reprehensible. I am grateful that freedom exists (the very freedoms dictators often take away) for both myself and others to say who we are in this day and age. I can be at once gently concerned for the person who chooses Stalin as their avatar, understanding that they might be toying with ideologies I find distasteful, while still hopeful for them that they may be only going through a necessary philosophical phase they will eventually surpass. If I understand that their motivation might be to incite precisely the type of reactionary outrage in people that I am experiencing, I can be both compassionate for the underlying spiritual confusion their choice of avatar is likely a symptom of, and resolve myself to not give them the satisfaction of playing on my emotions. I am grateful we live in a world wherein the only way Stalin has any effect on my life is that I might encounter his image on a chess website.

And so forth...

Oh, and most of all I'm grateful that it is my choice over how my experiences are framed, and in my power to choose to view them as positive opportunities rather than negative attacks over which I have no control.

 If you repeatedly encounter images that you find objectionable, a reasonable person will stop going  to the place that he encounters those images. I don't have to stare into my navel for half an hour and examine my feelings in order to understand why I think Stalin is an inapproprite image for an avatar on a site like this. Consider what happens when a scantily clad human image is displayed as an avatar. Which is more obscene?

"...but casting stones at the guy cuz you don't see where he's coming from is really off (and yes, stupid)."

That is hilarious, coming from you. Let me refer you to "14 days per move". This guy kept saying over and over again, he was just having fun on the forums, and you kept saying over and over again, how you hated him, how he was posting "shit", and you wanted others to help you pile on him. Seriously, you're "really off" in the jungles of hypocrisy

That might almost be considered an inflammatory comment.

 I'm not talking about rating movies or ''conformity," I'm just saying that if the people who run this site want to attract a diversity of players they should consider limiting images like the one that upset our Estonian collegue the way they limit the pictures of boobies that many apparently find objectionable.

We agree - but for the purposes of this discussion I'm choosing to focus not on the specifics per say - the specific website, the specific person, & so forth so much as to put the onus back on the OP and remind them of their own responsibility and gratitude, which, to my mind, is wherein I had the best chance of a) diffusing the inherent negative tension of the discussion and b) point out in a more general way ("teach a man to fish") how this particular instance can be an opportunity for reflection in a was that will benefit OP for the next time he finds himself similarily outraged.

One key word in your post is "repeatedly" (I assume he saw it once on a members page). Also, as I stated, my concern isn't whether or not the image is appropriate for this website, it's how we respond to any instance wherein we decide we're offended. I fully grasp, by the way, the interesting comparison to nude images, which could lead us to a longer discussion about violence and sex in society and how they're regarded, but I'm happy to stick with my main point.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the admins of chess.com are intelligent enough to think through patently obvious arguments, electric, like the one you're pointing out. Instead of debating the benefits of a particular business model, I thought it more pertinent to address OP directly, just my style though.

Well I'm going to ignore the "scantily clad human image" analogy, because it's not, at all, offensive to me. And I'm not interested in your appeal for people not staying with this site because they are emotionally shaken by images of Stalin. I don't think this website should participate in therapy. And I'm also going to re-refer you to the above quote from Rae1, as I couldn't put it better.

Its not therapy, its understanding you customers. If you want to refer me to Rae1, fair enough. He's thoughtful and articulate, unlike many in this thread, I just don't agree with him entirely.